Therefore,
complexity can refer to variance and amount of
information within a parameter, and the degree of
perceived complexity depends on the analytical skills of
a person.

I take this to support the proposition that "[the degree of] complexity" is perceptual.

With regards Eliot's:

There's also a well-known distinction between "complexity" and "complicatedness." When things are "complex"> many things are perceptually connected and big pictures emerge, whereas when things are complicated there's many things that> don't cohere into any picture at all.

On first hearing, these works (and others . . .) may appear complex (and complicated), but through study and continued listening, it is possible to hear through this initial response. Therefore, if 'complexity' is susceptible to reduction through continued exposure and education, I continue to suggest that the "complexity" is not in the acoustical signal, but is a perceptual category. As such, it has no metric.

Kevin

On 2011, Sep 3, at 12:39 PM, Aki Pasoulas wrote:

Hi Kevin and all,

You may find some interesting stuff in a short paper I had recently at the ICMC:

I would propose that the complexity / complicatedness is in the mind, not the object, or 'acoustical signal' [sic]. [* I don't think we want to go there.] In this case, I suggest, there is only a psychometric of complexity, not a metric.

Mozart's "complexity" is based on many hundreds of years of western music history, but locally, on about 180 years. Boulez's has the same history, plus another 175 years. Boulez was aware of the Mozart concertos; Mozart wasn't aware of Pierrot Lunaire.

Kevin

All sound heard at the greatest possible distance
produces one and the same effect, a vibration of the universal lyre,

> On 11/08/2011 2:20 PM, Justin London wrote:>> I'd also add that accounting for the number, variety, and distribution of elements in a sequence may not capture all of its complexities, for some aspects of musical complexity are not in the acoustic signal.> > There's also a well-known distinction between "complexity" and "complicatedness." When things are "complex"> many things are perceptually connected and big pictures emerge, whereas when things are complicated there's many things that> don't cohere into any picture at all.> > Lerdahl e.g. claimed that a Mozart piano concerto is more "complex" than "Marteau
sans Maitre". More> generally, one should be able to distinguish between things that are probably going to wind up> sounding like music & things that probably won't.> > To get a sense of how hard that problem is, consider "Happy Birthday" forwards & backwards. Should not the metric report that the forward version is more complex than the backwards?> > -- eliot